• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

26 year old male who sexually assaulted 10 year old girl will be housed in juvenile female facility.

Loren Pechtel said:
Toni said:
There are so many questions left unanswered by the article linked and others I found. Apparently there have been a number of other arrests by which means they matched DNA to the rapist. So….why are there no other sentences that are being served right now? No convictions? That opens a lot of serious questions about the legal system. Was this person unfairly targeted and accused? Was this related to trans bigotry ( unfair arrests) or inadequate prosecution?

In any case, Hannah will be isolated out of sight from other inmates during their sentence. The juveniles should be safe from
Hannah. That is the real concern, isn’t it?

It bears considering that while sexual assault and rape are more often committed by males, females can also commit acts of sexual violence against other females and against makes as well. Even as juveniles. It is unlikely that there have been zero juvenile XX females convicted of sexual assault against other XX female juveniles. How are they held during their sentences?
Click to expand...

Perhaps this is just the first one to be tried.

Also, California used to have a 10 year statute of limitations on rape. This person is 26 now, anything before they were 16 probably can't be prosecuted.
Click to expand...
Apparently they were 16 when they committed thus rape. Their identity was discovered because Hannah’s DNA was in the database due to other crimes—I’m assuming also sexual assaults. I was just surprised they weren’t already in prison..
 
While this situation is definitely not optimal for anyone involved, it's worth acknowledging that there are worse failure states that were avoided in this case.

It's incredibly fortunate for all of us that Hannah pled guilty to sexual assault whilst being a minor. Due to that plea, it means that it is obviously apparent that she identified as a juvenile female criminal and thus the state was able to respect her self-identity as such and have her imprisoned in the appropriate facility accordingly.

If Hannah did not plead guilty, then the state would need to make assumptions about whether or not she identifies as such a criminal to determine whether or not she could be locked up in accordance with her self-identity.

While the state could try to say that she is a criminal whether or not she identifies as such by using such things as "physical evidence" or "the testimony of others", doing so would clearly be "ignoring the identity of a person because they have been an awful person".

Given this set of circumstances, the enlightened state would respect that Hannah does not identify as a rapist or a criminal and thus should not be locked up in a facility for rapists and/or criminals.

Any suggestion that this may result in what the enlightened may call "An increase in the number of instances of sexual intercourse where a failure of communication may have resulted in a perceived failure of consent." and the unenlightened may call "A fuckin' rape spree." is clearly prejudicial as such a result would be something that would happen in the future which hasn't happened yet and is thus unknown to anyone who isn't prescient.

Also, I believe I should point out that for the purposes of this thread, I identify as prescient, and as such I can state clearly that everyone else in the thread isn't prescient because if they were, they would have identified as such already.
 
Some people seriously have such a hard time letting go of their demands of "sex" as a word and concept to apply to people, their desire to publicly sex each other when we already know the world keeps spinning just as well when we don't publicly sex each other and we wait till "the third date" before we actually discuss that.

Which to be fair, "the third date" may be more like "the first date" in some situations.

The fact is, we shouldn't be housing rapists with potential victims, no matter what.

Prison rape is not ok just because they are "criminals".

It is easy enough to divide the prison estates, not changing much of anything at all but removing "men" "women" "male" "female" and all that other bullshit from the legal structure, and put exactly everyone "capable of impregnating a human being" in their own estate, and everyone else in their own estate, and then further separating each so as to isolate rapists from victims.
 
Enigma said:
While this situation is definitely not optimal for anyone involved, it's worth acknowledging that there are worse failure states that were avoided in this case.

It's incredibly fortunate for all of us that Hannah pled guilty to sexual assault whilst being a minor. Due to that plea, it means that it is obviously apparent that she identified as a juvenile female criminal and thus the state was able to respect her self-identity as such and have her imprisoned in the appropriate facility accordingly.

If Hannah did not plead guilty, then the state would need to make assumptions about whether or not she identifies as such a criminal to determine whether or not she could be locked up in accordance with her self-identity.

While the state could try to say that she is a criminal whether or not she identifies as such by using such things as "physical evidence" or "the testimony of others", doing so would clearly be "ignoring the identity of a person because they have been an awful person".

Given this set of circumstances, the enlightened state would respect that Hannah does not identify as a rapist or a criminal and thus should not be locked up in a facility for rapists and/or criminals.

Any suggestion that this may result in what the enlightened may call "An increase in the number of instances of sexual intercourse where a failure of communication may have resulted in a perceived failure of consent." and the unenlightened may call "A fuckin' rape spree." is clearly prejudicial as such a result would be something that would happen in the future which hasn't happened yet and is thus unknown to anyone who isn't prescient.

Also, I believe I should point out that for the purposes of this thread, I identify as prescient, and as such I can state clearly that everyone else in the thread isn't prescient because if they were, they would have identified as such already.
Click to expand...
You're really bad at being prescient. And who are you to judge others for being in the prescience closet?
 
Jarhyn said:
Some people seriously have such a hard time letting go of their demands of "sex" as a word and concept to apply to people, their desire to publicly sex each other when we already know the world keeps spinning just as well when we don't publicly sex each other and we wait till "the third date" before we actually discuss that.

Which to be fair, "the third date" may be more like "the first date" in some situations.

The fact is, we shouldn't be housing rapists with potential victims, no matter what.

Prison rape is not ok just because they are "criminals".

It is easy enough to divide the prison estates, not changing much of anything at all but removing "men" "women" "male" "female" and all that other bullshit from the legal structure, and put exactly everyone "capable of impregnating a human being" in their own estate, and everyone else in their own estate, and then further separating each so as to isolate rapists from victims.
Click to expand...
I'm not totally in agreement with you with regards to removing classifications such as men, women, male and female and separating those capable of impregnating people from everyone else. There are many types of victimization and abuse that are not rape but fall along gender lines. Since we're splitting hairs here, sterile men are capable of rape. Women are capable of rape. Not all rape involves penises or vaginas.

I agree 10000 percent that prison rape is not OK. Rape/sexual assault and fear of such assaults should never be part of the condition of any sentence.

Rapists/sexual assailants should never be allowed access to potential victims.
 
Metaphor said:
Jarhyn said:
... Doesn't get you to "ought."
Click to expand...
Never said it did. Next.
Click to expand...
Yes you did. you argued quite vociferously here to support the continuation of division of estate in that way:
Metaphor said:
Probably because the overwhelming majority of people would disagree with you, though I admit there might be majority support among fringe leftists who would agree only insofar as they want to abolish prison anyway and this would be a sure fire way to fast track that.
Click to expand...
...And you use Argumentum Ad Polulum, no less..
 
Metaphor said:
If you mean 'solitary', yes, I understand it, that's why I wrote 'locked up within the lockup'. What did you think I meant by 'locked up within the lockup'?
Click to expand...
Sometimes it's hard to tell what you mean by terms you use. If you understand that Tubbs isn't a particular threat to anyone in the facility, what's your point?

Tubbs is a freakish anomaly. An adult MtF(whatever that means in the context). Xhe committed a vicious sex crime as a juvenile, but not convicted until years later. Tubbs just doesn't fit into a box. So, the disposition of the case is awkward. But unimportant, because it's rare enough to get special treatment. Nobody is advocating for the end of sex segregated prisons, or lumping all prisoners together.
Tom
 
TomC said:
Sometimes it's hard to tell what you mean by terms you use. If you understand that Tubbs isn't a particular threat to anyone in the facility, what's your point?
Click to expand...
I was speaking to ZiprHead.

Historically, until recently, the prison estate was segregated by sex and by age. Tubbs' imprisonment violates both of these conventions. As far as I can see, there appears to be no good reason to break these conventions for any prisoner but especially Tubbs.
 
Metaphor said:
Historically, until recently, the prison estate was segregated by sex and by age. Tubbs' imprisonment violates both of these conventions. As far as I can see, there appears to be no good reason to break these conventions for any prisoner but especially Tubbs.
Click to expand...

I agree.
But I can't help but notice that you ignored the part where I pointed out the Tubbs is a freakish anomaly.

Prisons are generally appalling. All kinds of nasty things happen when we lock up criminals together.
Sex segregation helps. Age segregation helps. Solitary confinement helps. But nothing is perfect. Tubbs is an anomaly and the Justice system did their best. Incarcerated according to law, while protecting the other inmates. It's a strange situation. But I don't see any better outcome or decision possible.

Sure as hell not your suggestion, putting all prisoners together, regardless of age or sex.

Tom
 
TomC said:
Incarcerated according to law, while protecting the other inmates. It's a strange situation. But I don't see any better outcome or decision possible.
Click to expand...
There certainly could have been a better outcome - Tubbs in the adult male estate, where he belongs. If you mean, there was no possible better outcome given California's legal system, then the legal system needs to be revised.
TomC said:
Sure as hell not your suggestion, putting all prisoners together, regardless of age or sex.
Click to expand...
That was not my suggestion. If you think it was, you are mistaken. In fact, I named the possibility to ZiprHead to illustrate how ridiculous it would be.
 
Metaphor said:
TomC said:
Metaphor said:
There certainly could have been a better outcome - Tubbs in the adult male estate, where he belongs.
Click to expand...

How is that better than the current situation?
Tom
Click to expand...
Because the adult male estate is equipped to deal with adult males, and the juvenile female estate is not.
Click to expand...

What makes you think this?

Frankly, I find the current system appalling. Appalling in a raft of ways.

But what makes you think that the all male system is better equipped to deal with this particular issue than what actually happened? I don't want to hear about vague principles, I'm asking you about this exact issue. Tubbs, and what happened.
Tom
 
TomC said:
What makes you think this?
Click to expand...
The same reason I think pediatricians are better equipped to deal with childhood illness than geriatricians?
TomC said:
But what makes you think that the all male system is better equipped to deal with this particular issue than what actually happened? I don't want to hear about vague principles, I'm asking you about this exact issue. Tubbs, and what happened.
Tom
Click to expand...
What do you mean by 'what happened'? Do you mean a 17 year old biological male raping a 10 year old girl? Or do you mean the series of events that led to Tubbs being in a juvenile female facility when he is neither juvenile nor a female?
 
Metaphor said:
The same reason I think pediatricians are better equipped to deal with childhood illness than geriatricians?
Click to expand...
I don't think medical specialists are the equivalent of the prison system.

Metaphor said:
What do you mean by 'what happened'? Do you mean a 17 year old biological male raping a 10 year old girl? Or do you mean the series of events that led to Tubbs being in a juvenile female facility when he is neither juvenile nor a female?
Click to expand...
The series of events that led to Tubbs being solitary confinement.
You seem to forget the solitary confinement part when it doesn't suit your personal narrative.
Tom
 
TomC said:
The series of events that led to Tubbs being solitary confinement.
You seem to forget the solitary confinement part when it doesn't suit your personal narrative.
Click to expand...
I haven't forgotten anything. Tubbs belongs in solitary confinement in the adult male estate, because he is an adult male.
 
Metaphor said:
TomC said:
The series of events that led to Tubbs being solitary confinement.
You seem to forget the solitary confinement part when it doesn't suit your personal narrative.
Click to expand...
I haven't forgotten anything. Tubbs belongs in solitary confinement in the adult male estate, because he is an adult male.
Click to expand...
Why is it important where Tubbs is held in solitary confinement?
Tom
 
TomC said:
Metaphor said:
TomC said:
The series of events that led to Tubbs being solitary confinement.
You seem to forget the solitary confinement part when it doesn't suit your personal narrative.
Click to expand...
I haven't forgotten anything. Tubbs belongs in solitary confinement in the adult male estate, because he is an adult male.
Click to expand...
Why is it important where Tubbs is held in solitary confinement?
Tom
Click to expand...
Because the juvenile female estate was built for juvenile females, not adult males. I don't know how to explain it more simply than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom